Middle East: Give Sharon a Chance

About the Author

James PhillipsSenior Research Fellow for Middle Eastern AffairsDouglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign and National Security Policy

Although few know how to stop the escalating violence in the Middle
East, many think they know who to blame: Israeli Prime
Minister-elect Ariel Sharon. Surely, they say, the landslide
election of such a hard-liner means the end of the peace
process-and serves as a harbinger of all-out war.

But the truth is that the Middle East has been sliding toward
war since last fall, when Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat opted
for low-intensity warfare despite far-reaching concessions from
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak.

In fact, war would have been more likely had Barak been
re-elected, because his failed appeasement policy only whetted the
appetite of Palestinians and other Arabs for further Israeli
concessions. Barak's May 2000 unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon
was perceived as a victory for the strategy of violence employed by
the radical Lebanese Hezbollah (Party of God). Israeli restraint
was interpreted as weakness.

Barak had offered the Palestinians a state built on roughly 95
percent of the West Bank and Gaza and portions of Jerusalem,
including part of the Temple Mount, Judaism's most sacred site. But
Arafat rejected this, even declining to make a counter-offer. He
then orchestrated the current spasm of violence to pressure Israel
into more concessions.

Not surprisingly, the disillusioned Israelis have hardened their
views on peace negotiations. By voting for Sharon over Barak (62
percent to 37 percent), they decisively rejected the
peace-at-almost-any-price approach.

Sharon's stunning victory was remarkable, given the fact that
not long ago he was regarded by many Israelis as a political
dinosaur, unable to adapt to Israel's changing international
situation. The burly ex-general, who fought in all of Israel's
wars, appeared out of place in the "New Middle East" proclaimed by
Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres after the 1993 signing of the
Oslo peace accord with the Palestinians. Sharon (nickname: "the
bulldozer") was perceived to be a bull in a china shop.

But the "New Middle East" closely resembles the "Old Middle
East," full of bitter ideological hostility and inflamed national
passions. Arafat failed to transform himself from the leader of a
revolutionary terrorist movement to the leader of a nation trying
to reconcile with its longtime adversary. And he failed to fulfill
his Oslo obligations to halt Palestinian terrorism, to refrain from
inciting violence, and to crack down on radical Islamic groups.

Israelis have decided that enough is enough. They chose Sharon
for prime minister because he is someone they can trust to abandon
Barak's appeasement policy and strengthen Israeli security.

Which bring us to why Sharon's election can help bring peace.
Palestinians will no longer be so quick to assume that continued
violence will win them Israeli concessions. Sharon's reputation
will bolster Israel's deterrent strength, which eroded considerably
as Israel bent over backwards to keep the Oslo negotiations alive.
Radical Arab states, such as Iraq and Syria, are likely to be a
little more careful about provoking Israel.

Sharon's pragmatism may lead to surprises on the negotiating
front. He already has dispatched his son to meet with a Palestinian
delegation, an act that has political resonance in Arab political
culture. In the Middle East, where family ties are often the
strongest political bonds, sending a son to a meeting signals a
seriousness of purpose. Sharon also has invited Barak's Labor party
to join a government of national unity, a sign that he has not
ruled out future negotiations with the Palestinians.

In addition, Sharon is well-positioned to deliver on any
agreement he should make with the Palestinians. According to public
opinion polls, Israeli voters would have rejected Barak's
concessions. But Sharon's reputation as a hawk on Israeli security
issues will make it easier for him to sell any future deal with the
Palestinians to Israel's politicians and public.

Remember: It took hard-line anti-communist Richard Nixon to
strike a deal with Communist China, and hard-line Israeli Prime
Minister Menachem Begin to sign a peace treaty with Egypt. Today,
Sharon is one of the few Israeli leaders who can negotiate an
acceptable final settlement with the Palestinians. The real
question is whether the Palestinians want a genuine peace with
Israel.

James
Phillipsis a research fellow specializing in Middle
Eastern affairs in the Davis Institute for International Studies at
The Heritage Foundation.

About the Author

James PhillipsSenior Research Fellow for Middle Eastern AffairsDouglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign and National Security Policy